Dismissed

M/s.Aqua Excel v. The Assistant commissioner (St)(Fac)

Madras HC1 Jun 2023WP/14814/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed Writ Petitions challenging TNVAT orders. The petitioner sought liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order. The court dismissed the writs but granted liberty to approach the appellate authority within two weeks, with appeals to be entertained without limitation reference if filed timely.

What did the court decide?

Discharged Petitions dismissed with liberty to approach appellate authority within two weeks.

M/s.Aqua Excel Vs The Assistant commissioner (St)(Fac) — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.14814 of 2023 etc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01.06.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

W.P.Nos.14814, 14817 & 14821 of 2023 and

¶7

W.M.P.Nos. 14371, 14373, 14377,14378, 14385 & 14386 of 2023

¶8

M/s.Aqua Excel Rep. By its Managing Partner – K.Shanmugam, S.F.No.339/1-B, Mopperipalayam Village, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore – 641 659.

¶9

.. Petitioner

¶10

¶11

The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), Karumathampatti Assessment Circle Tirupur – II.

¶12

.. Respondent

¶13

Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records on the files of the respondent in its impugned proceedings made in TNVAT: 33932469103/2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 dated 30.01.2023 quash

¶14

the same.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajasekar (in all writ petitions) For Respondents : Mr.E.Ranganayki Additional Government Pleader (in all writ petitions)

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

1/4

¶18

W.P.No.14814 of 2023 etc

¶19

COMMON ORDER

¶20

The short prayer of the petitioner is that it be permitted to approach the appellate authority by way of statutory appeal.

¶21

The necessity for approaching this Court arises from the fact that filing of appeals is delayed beyond condonable period, i.e., by 26 days as on date of institution of the writ petitions being 09.05.2023.

¶22

Mrs.E.Ranganayaki, learned Additional Government Pleader, who accepts notice for the respondents, does not express any serious objection to the request in light of the explanations set out at paragraph 11 of the writ affidavit, reading thus:-

¶23

“[11] I submit that the petitioner has engaged a local consultant to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority as against the order passed by the Respondent dated 30.01.2023. Though the local consultant who prepared the appeal papers could not file the same within the stipulated time thereby the petitioner has lost a chance of filing an appeal.”

¶24

Thus, while dismissing these writ petitions, and the challenge to the impugned orders passed under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority within a period of two weeks from today. Appeals, if filed within the period as aforesaid, shall be entertained by the receiving Registry without reference to limitation but ensuring compliance with all other statutory pre-conditions,

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

2/4

¶27

W.P.No.14814 of 2023 etc

¶28

including, pre-deposit.

¶29

Writ petitions stand dismissed with liberty. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶30

01.06.2023

¶31

Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No ssm

¶32

¶33

The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), Karumathampatti Assessment Circle Tirupur – II.

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

3/4

¶36

W.P.No.14814 of 2023 etc

¶37

DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.

¶38

ssm

¶39

W.P.Nos.14814, 14817 & 14821 of 2023

¶40

01.06.2023

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

4/4

M/s.Aqua Excel v. The Assistant commissioner (St)(Fac)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Aqua Excel v. The Assistant commissioner (St)(Fac)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Athiyaman Vs The Commissioner

Tapp Semiconductor India P Ltd. Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

C.Roja vanarasi Vs The Director of Elementary education

M/s.Badru Jehan waqf alal aulad Trust, Vs The Managing Director

T.Sivakumar Vs The Government of India

The South Indian Sugar Vs The State of Tamilnadu,Rep by